shilsen
Adventurer
I've seen a fair number of threads on ENWorld over the years where people have complained about or argued over aspects of the game where their dissatisfaction stemmed, at least in part, from the disparity between the name of a particular class/feat//ability/spell/etc. (and the resultant expectations/preconceptions that the name raised) and what it actually did. An easy example of such is the ranger, whose name references a lot of literary and other conceptions that the class itself (for many) does not exactly fit.
I was just thinking today that I've never paid much attention to names as such in D&D but have always focused on the given description and mechanics. Which is at least one reason I often don't have trouble with aspects of D&D I see many people complain about. For me, when I read about the gorgon in D&D, it's never bothered me (despite being a mythologist) that it's a big metal bull instead of a woman with snakes for hair, as the gorgon was in Greek myth (Medusa only being one of them). I always looked at the D&D ranger and thought it was a two-weapon warrior who casts nature-oriented spells (because that's what it is in D&D), rather than anything to do with Aragorn or Robin Hood or any other archetype the name may evoke. I look at the warlock and don't really care that it has nothing to do with warlocks in history/folklore/myth. I don't really care that Iron Will hardly gives you what the name describes or that Stunning Fist has nothing necessarily to do with fists.
In short, when I look at names in D&D, I generally regard them as nothing more than an identifying factor rather than actually providing information about the object being named. Or, even shorter - What's in a name? A frenzied berserker by any other name would screw the party just as well.
So, am I the only weirdo who takes this approach?
I was just thinking today that I've never paid much attention to names as such in D&D but have always focused on the given description and mechanics. Which is at least one reason I often don't have trouble with aspects of D&D I see many people complain about. For me, when I read about the gorgon in D&D, it's never bothered me (despite being a mythologist) that it's a big metal bull instead of a woman with snakes for hair, as the gorgon was in Greek myth (Medusa only being one of them). I always looked at the D&D ranger and thought it was a two-weapon warrior who casts nature-oriented spells (because that's what it is in D&D), rather than anything to do with Aragorn or Robin Hood or any other archetype the name may evoke. I look at the warlock and don't really care that it has nothing to do with warlocks in history/folklore/myth. I don't really care that Iron Will hardly gives you what the name describes or that Stunning Fist has nothing necessarily to do with fists.
In short, when I look at names in D&D, I generally regard them as nothing more than an identifying factor rather than actually providing information about the object being named. Or, even shorter - What's in a name? A frenzied berserker by any other name would screw the party just as well.
So, am I the only weirdo who takes this approach?
